Baloney. That is not enduring. Enduring is actually being Batman and enduring all of this heat, hatred, and being chased and hunted. Like how in TDK in the scene in the bunker where's packing away his Batman costume and burning files that linked Batman to Rachel and Fox, when he was going to quit over Joker's mass murder spree over him, Alfred told him to endure and take it, even though everyone will hate him for it.

That's endurance. If he quit then he wouldn't be enduring which is why Alfred was urging him to continue. The only reason he wasn't Batman any more in TDKR is because he wasn't needed. Gotham got magically cleaned up thanks to Dent's legacy as soon as he died.

Gordon: "We were in this together and then you were gone"
Bruce: "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won"
Gordon: "Based on a lie"

No endurance necessary when you're not being Batman any more.

In your comic book mindset sure, but it's still enduring. Like I said Batman is not just a man in this interpretation, he's a symbol. The symbol endured. The man suffered as a trapped man for it in order for his symbol to take the heat.

That's TDK. Different movie, different circumstances. He physically endured in TDK but the end of TDKR was him fully understanding what Ras meant. The end of the trilogy, the end of his journey could only happen when he actually learnt that Batman has to become more than just a man, a concept, a legend that can be immortal , like the League of Shadows going from generation to generation of Al Ghul's. It's the reason why this bit of dialogue was chosen to be in the first teaser for TDKR. It's what this entire trilogy has been about from the get-go and it was fulfilled right down to the tee. You and the others who are sticking your fingers in your ears screaming LA LA LA!! are doing that because you are so stuck on the notion that it must mirror the comics down to a tee, where Bruce (the man) physically stays out there for ever.

And like BatLobster says, endurance isn't limited to the physical.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

I was thinking the same thing earlier. There is no heat in this discussion, it is like playing a gentle game of cricket with friends on a summer's afternoon.

It's a pity more threads aren't equally civil.

I find that ironic since this is the general TDKR discussion thread.

The thing is that most people are too tired of discussing the film at this point. Just a year ago, this place was packed. Now there are only a couple of people going around in circles. Occasionally someone new joins in to offer their two cents and then leaves but for the most part, that's what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises

Hasn't everyone in their life had to emotionally endure something? The definition of the word isn't limited to physical acts. And neither is Batman when he's meant to be a symbol.

What exactly do you mean by emotional endurance? Obviously I know what it means but how is Bruce going through emotional endurance?

I love how we are the wrong ones for having a "comic-book mindset." What a horrible bias for comic-book movie fans to have. You know, shauner, I never assert that you are a blind Nolan fanboy - that would be insulting, beside the point, and a fallacious attempt to undermine your credibility. I wish you wouldn't use such tactics on us.

In TDKR we get no indication that his symbol endured, in fact quite the opposite - it is established early in the film that Gotham thinks Batman is a murderer, his reputation is tarnished, etc. The symbol only endures in the mind of Gordon and a few older cops (and the orphans). Everyone else is hungry to take Batman down. The symbol didn't endure because Batman just hung up the cowl and gave up on the symbol, rather than continuing the fight.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

Im not saying it to get under anybodys skin but I feel it's true. People on here naturally have this mindset that when something comes up in a film that slightly resembles the comics, then it must mean that it's going to follow through 100 percent on it like the comics would. But it's film and it doesn't have to, the writers can cherry pick what they want and alter things.

Endurance doesn't have to mean physical endurance. You can emotionally endure something. It was set up from the beginning of this trilogy that Batman would be a symbol and not a man. It would carry on and become immortal once Bruce Wayne is done with it.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

It's nothing to do with a comic mind set (though imagine having one while watching a COMIC BOOK movie. So shocking). It's to do with rational logic. Quitters are not enduring.

Quote:

Like I said Batman is not just a man in this interpretation, he's a symbol. The symbol endured. The man suffered as a trapped man for it in order for his symbol to take the heat.

A symbol is not a man. A symbol doesn't get chased and hunted. "We have to chase him because he can take it".

Quote:

That's TDK. Different movie, different circumstances.

No, no, no, the exact same circumstances. Batman faced a crisis of being hated, and he endured it by staying on as Batman.

Quote:

He physically endured in TDK but the end of TDKR was him fully understanding what Ras meant. The end of the trilogy, the end of his journey could only happen when he actually learnt that Batman has to become more than just a man, a concept, a legend that can be immortal , like the League of Shadows going from generation to generation of Al Ghul's. It's the reason why this bit of dialogue was chosen to be in the first teaser for TDKR. It's what this entire trilogy has been about from the get-go and it was fulfilled right down to the tee.

Bruce always understood the importance of being a symbol. He got that from the get-go hence why he chose a bat to be the symbol of fear to criminals.

This has nothing to do with being some fancy immortal symbol. We're talking about Batman, as a person, enduring not the symbol of Batman. They were not talking about a symbol enduring in TDK. They were talking about Batman being able to take the hate (shown by them smashing the batsignal), them chasing him (shown by him actually being chased by the Cops at the end).

Quote:

You and the others who are sticking your fingers in your ears screaming LA LA LA!! are doing that because you are so stuck on the notion that it must mirror the comics down to a tee, where Bruce (the man) physically stays out there for ever.

I never mentioned the comics. I was talking strictly about the movies.

Pay attention to my actual words please. Don't mis quote me.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

What exactly do you mean by emotional endurance? Obviously I know what it means but how is Bruce going through emotional endurance?

I don't think Bruce is emotionally enduring at all when TDKR starts, at least not in the "holding his head up high through the rough times" sense. I think he tried doing that for years (trying to help Gotham via the energy project), but eventually he finds himself out of options. Out of ways to be useful, his demons start to rear their ugly head and slowly eat him up. I brought up the potential emotional component of the word as a way of arguing that we needn't narrow our interpretation of "endure" to simply "being Batman". Alfred said the point of Batman was to make the choice that no one else can make. In a sense, taking the blame and allowing Batman to fade away when necessary is a part of that.

In other ways though, I do think there is some unhealthy emotional enduring going on. He is enduring in his belief that Rachel was his only chance for a happy life. He is enduring in his belief that a lie was the best thing for Gotham. It's all a part of him being frozen.

Hasn't everyone in their life had to emotionally endure something? The definition of the word isn't limited to physical acts. And neither is Batman when he's meant to be a symbol.

Yes. A bad freshman year and an uphill struggle to get my GPA to where it needed to be for medical school. Seeing everyone else move on made me want to give up. It is what made Bruce's struggle to escape the Pit and overcome Bane resonate deeply.

__________________
Goku Lands on Namek CEO
...no king but the King in the North whose name is BRADY...

In TDKR we get no indication that his symbol endured, in fact quite the opposite - it is established early in the film that Gotham thinks Batman is a murderer, his reputation is tarnished, etc. The symbol only endures in the mind of Gordon and a few older cops (and the orphans). Everyone else is hungry to take Batman down. The symbol didn't endure because Batman just hung up the cowl and gave up on the symbol, rather than continuing the fight.

In all fairness, his symbol certainly endured and saw retribution by the end of TDKR. You're talking about the first 3rd of the film as if the story ends right there.

TDKR is a complete continuation of TDK, and BB before it. Despite a "fall from grace" (typical superhero trope) after the events of TDK, Bruce's mission as Batman should still be considered a triumph, especially after what he did for the city at the end of TDKR.

At the end of TDK, it's stated that Batman is "the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now." But by TDKR's end, it's clear that Batman filled both of those roles. He came back. He was needed, and he did all that he could to protect his city. He DID endure, and despite Bruce seemingly moving on from it all, the ending of TDKR suggests that the Batman symbol will endure, too.

__________________I'll be there... around every corner, in every empty room,as inevitable as your guilty conscience...

In all fairness, his symbol certainly endured and saw retribution by the end of TDKR. You're talking about the first 3rd of the film as if the story ends right there.

TDKR is a complete continuation of TDK, and BB before it. Despite a "fall from grace" (typical superhero trope) after the events of TDK, Bruce's mission as Batman should still be considered a triumph, especially after what he did for the city at the end of TDKR.

At the end of TDK, it's stated that Batman is "the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now." But by TDKR's end, it's clear that Batman filled both of those roles. He came back. He was needed, and he did all that he could to protect his city. He DID endure, and despite Bruce seemingly moving on from it all, the ending of TDKR suggests that the Batman symbol will endure, too.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

I know the signal endured at the end of TDKR. We're discussing, though, the way the end of TDK connects with the beginning of TDKR. Which means Bruce gave up on creating an enduring signal for 8 years.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

I don't understand people with a "screw the comics" mentality. Most, if not every aspect of these films are, in some way or another, inspired by the comics. Saying "Screw the comics" is just a cheap argument designed to undermine comic fans, and it only justifies the hatred people have for Nolanites, as most people who use this argument are or come off as complete snobs/wanna be film critics. You'd think they'd be better off writing 50 page critical analysis' on Felini instead of...hanging out on a comic book film board...where most people watch these films...because they like the comics.

I wonder what would happen on a LOTR/Potter fansite if I walked in and said "Screw the books".

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

If one truly loves Batman they'll see that the comics are very important but a different beast on their own.

See, I love how Nolan & Co. used character traits, themes, motifs, and nods to panels over many different instead of aping something from a specific comic/year, that wouldn't translate anyways.

They way he re-imagined the Gordon/Bats/Dent rooftop scene (TLH), let Joker have multiple pasts (Klling Joke), Bruce's overseas journey (LOTDK), Bruce/Lucius tech conversations (late 90's Batman) are all more respectful and the better option. There's so many more little things here and there but it's easier to just go to;

Not leaving Bruce in a lifelong war against crime, Rachel Dawes, Crane being used by Ra's, Bane's look, and Blake... to name a few changes and comic departures are all outweighed by their above respect for the comics and were great additions and ideas that serviced their world. This might not have been the most in-line comic book adaption of Batman but it is the best because of everything, comic or not.

BTAS was the same, so many departures but one of the greatest overall Batman things ever. There are many different Batman stories, arcs, issues, shows, movies, games, etc. Why would you want them all the same? As long as they are traditional to what I love and know/understand of Batman then who can be mad?

Hell, if anything... most of us are wrong with who Batman is. Isn't he suppose to have purple gloves, drive a red sedan, use guns, and have an apostrophe in his name? We actually should hate on anything post ~1946 because none of that is ever regarded, LOL.

If one truly loves Batman they'll see that the comics are very important but a different beast on their own.

See, I love how Nolan & Co. used character traits, themes, motifs, and nods to panels over many different instead of aping something from a specific comic/year, that wouldn't translate anyways.

They way he re-imagined the Gordon/Bats/Dent rooftop scene (TLH), let Joker have multiple pasts (Klling Joke), Bruce's overseas journey (LOTDK), Bruce/Lucius tech conversations (late 90's Batman) are all more respectful and the better option. There's so many more little things here and there but it's easier to just go to;

Not leaving Bruce in a lifelong war against crime, Rachel Dawes, Crane being used by Ra's, Bane's look, and Blake... to name a few changes and comic departures are all outweighed by their above respect for the comics and were great additions and ideas that serviced their world. This might not have been the most in-line comic book adaption of Batman but it is the best because of everything, comic or not.

BTAS was the same, so many departures but one of the greatest overall Batman things ever. There are many different Batman stories, arcs, issues, shows, movies, games, etc. Why would you want them all the same? As long as they are traditional to what I love and know/understand of Batman then who can be mad?

Hell, if anything... most of us are wrong with who Batman is. Isn't he suppose to have purple gloves, drive a red sedan, use guns, and have an apostrophe in his name? We actually should hate on anything post ~1946 because none of that is ever regarded, LOL.

What a great post.

Looks like this Batman paid more respect to the comics than any before, so many references and connections.

I don't understand people with a "screw the comics" mentality. Most, if not every aspect of these films are, in some way or another, inspired by the comics. Saying "Screw the comics" is just a cheap argument designed to undermine comic fans, and it only justifies the hatred people have for Nolanites, as most people who use this argument are or come off as complete snobs/wanna be film critics. You'd think they'd be better off writing 50 page critical analysis' on Felini instead of...hanging out on a comic book film board...where most people watch these films...because they like the comics.

I wonder what would happen on a LOTR/Potter fansite if I walked in and said "Screw the books".

It's not about "screw the comics", it's just that for the most part theyre irrelevant when it comes to sticking to it. You don't need to because that's not the point of film. The target audience aren't the comic book readers.

I didn't grow up on comics, I grew up on film. I grew up on a few characters like Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, some members of the Justice League and even X-Men. But I didn't buy a comic until I hit my 20s. I didn't sign up on this forum because I love and adore the comics and want movies to honor everything that's in them. Im on the hype to talk about the films I enjoyed.

Ill take Felini or any other great director over 90 percent of comic book movies and the type of directors who handle them. I would certainly rather talk about them. But im talking about Nolan's trilogy because that's what is relevant. The comics are relevant sure, they take inspiration from them, but in the grand scheme of things it's just really not much. It's just about telling a good story for film. Putting out a good movie. Even if it goes against the comics half of the time.

And im no comic hater. I love plenty of Batman graphic novels. And Nolan and Goyer drew a lot from my favorite ones. But again, they've been twisted so much by them that the importance is just about telling a good story. Not necessarily honoring any single interpretation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travesty

But dude, these movies aren't the comics, mannnnnn.

But it's the truth. These movies aren't made with fans in mind. They'll be there anyway. The rest of the world is what the studios and filmmakers have in mind.

__________________"Lets make one thing very clear here - Nolan's films are as faithful an adaptation as there is. It pays homage to its source material, remains true to its characters and above all else places the story first and foremost." - jmc

It's not about "screw the comics", it's just that for the most part theyre irrelevant when it comes to sticking to it. You don't need to because that's not the point of film. The target audience aren't the comic book readers.

"Chris Nolan and I had to meet with [DC President] Paul Levitz and other high-ups, to make sure we didn't break the core rules of the character.”

What's the difference between saying "screw the comics" and "the comics are irrelevant?" One phrase uses the word "screw" and the other doesn't?

Your continual point, shauner, is that the target audience is the GA and not comic book readers. That doesn't make the comic books irrelevant though, because that is to drive a false dichotomy between what comic book fans want and what the GA wants. What you are arguing is some sort of "argument from majority" to say that your tastes have exclusive dominance in the market whereas comic book fans' tastes are in the minority - but that's an unproven premise, for the reason stated above.

Its NOT true that "these movies aren't made with fans in mind." They are absolutely made with fans in mind. Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer are huge fans of the comics. And again, having fans in mind is not contradictory to having the rest of the world in mind.

Your signature alone disparages the comics by asserting that Nolan's interpretation of Batman is both different from the comics and superior. In other words, "screw the comics."

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arrow_22

Look for reports of mysterious heroism in the next 6 years. Then check back on this thread

Yeah it sure sounds like they felt they were irrelevant for the most part

I feel like Shauner dosen't actually know what he's saying.

The team met with DC Comics. David Goyer was hired specficially because he knew about the comics. How are they irrelevant? And As Phantasm points out, how is saying "The comics are mostly irrelevant" different from "Screw the comics"?

These films aren't made with the fans in mind? Then why would WB, or anyone else for that matter, go to Comic Con then, year after year, to show off trailers and have Q & A's?

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

I don't understand people with a "screw the comics" mentality. Most, if not every aspect of these films are, in some way or another, inspired by the comics. Saying "Screw the comics" is just a cheap argument designed to undermine comic fans, and it only justifies the hatred people have for Nolanites, as most people who use this argument are or come off as complete snobs/wanna be film critics. You'd think they'd be better off writing 50 page critical analysis' on Felini instead of...hanging out on a comic book film board...where most people watch these films...because they like the comics.

I wonder what would happen on a LOTR/Potter fansite if I walked in and said "Screw the books".

It kinda depends on the director. Not just Lot or Potter , etc. Any book.

Kubrick all his life adapted someone's else work. Rarely he gave a damn about being faithful to the material. I would say , outside of Nabokov Lolita , he always elevated the original work.

It's not like we're talking high literature or anything.

Also , i liked the being snob and writing a 50 page critical analysis on Fellini.